Search results

Again, do your own homework. I've given you more than enough information for you to get on with it. Don't pretend for a second that you have studied this issue well enough to have formed a conclusion at all, let alone the one you hold.

I am married for the second time. You can’t have keep your ignorant assumptions to yourself.

And men are “prone” to anger and therefore unsuitable for leadership in the Church. You can’t have one without the other.

Step up and provide the entire Law? Don’t be ridiculous. You think that you’re basing you interpretation on “the clear reading of the text” but can’t provide the verses to which “Paul” refers? If the text is clear, so is the reference. I won’t hold my breath, because you already display smug...

I would say that your research is far from complete. I’ll give you a hint to get you started: Ephesian mystery cults.

I have seen women calm and cool first, and men emotional first… usually with anger. Neither is capable of leading in the church without the restraint and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Fleshly comparison has no evidentiary value, nor does an issue that Scripture simply does not identify as a...

Did I say “the same”? No. Don’t argue as though I did.

Define “men’s territory”, please. Clearly and exhaustively, so there is no room for misunderstanding.

Your example has nothing to do with your use of circular reasoning.

Um, no. It impossible to prove something is NOT in the Law without quoting the entire Law. It has nothing to do with “being coy”. Step up and show the verses that prove your interpretation sound. Otherwise I will have to dismiss your position as untenable.

More irrelevance. What was happening in the place and time where the text was written in terms of government or political sphere, economy, religion, and community? What was going on in the “world” outside the church in those places? If you read the Bible as though it were written in 17th...

As I haven’t lost anything here, your comment is irrelevant… and insulting. You have completely missed the point. Scripture was written in a particular context. That context is relevant. Ignore it and you are likely to get your conclusions wrong. I want you to step up and demonstrate that...

Do your own homework.

Find out what was happening in Ephesus and Crete in terms of religion, culture, and economy. These things have a direct impact on the interpretation of Paul’s instructions.

I reject your claim of being “thorough”. People who are thorough in their research don’t ask others to supply answers. I have learned that in this realm, when you tell someone something, they won’t accept it. They have to find out for themselves. Also, I don’t see how Peter’s statement is...

What is the cultural context into which Paul wrote these instructions? Your previous answers have been either incorrect or inadequate.

There’s no game. You claimed to be thorough, so demonstrate it by answering my questions… thoroughly. You haven’t yet.

I did. Circular reasoning is (normally) a flaw that fatally undermines your argument.

Your assertion is incorrect and you are employing circular reasoning. Try again. What is the cultural context into which the letters were written? You claim to be “thorough” but you are dodging here.

That doesn't make any sense. I didn't ask you "Which culture", but rather, "What is the cultural context".